The Next Era of College Sports
College athletics is in the middle of its most dramatic transformation in decades. In just a few short years, the ground has shifted in ways that have been hard for even the most plugged-in fans to keep up with. Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rules have opened the door for athletes to earn money for the first time. Direct school payments to athletes are on the way, driven by the landmark House v. NCAA settlement, which will send billions in back pay to athletes and create an ongoing revenue-sharing system. Budgets, recruiting strategies, and even which sports a school can afford to sponsor are all being reshaped in real time.
Here’s the fundamental problem: we’re trying to run two completely different worlds under the same rulebook. On one side, you’ve got high-level Power 4 football and men’s basketball—sports with massive TV contracts, national sponsorship deals, and professional-level pay structures. On the other side, you’ve got everything else: Olympic programs, non-revenue sports, even many Division I teams outside the top conferences. They operate on tight budgets, depend on tuition and institutional support, and lean on modest fundraising just to keep the lights on. Their pressures and opportunities couldn’t be more different, but we keep acting like one system can solve both sets of problems. It can’t. That’s how we got here.
More and more people in the industry are saying it’s time to stop forcing these two realities into the same mold. The answer could be a “One for the Few, One for the Many” model—a framework that lets high-revenue sports keep operating in their big-business world while giving Olympic and non-revenue sports a sustainable, growth-minded path to thrive.
The “One for the Few” and “One for the Many” Model
One for the Few
This bucket is for the programs that make serious money—primarily FBS football and Division I men’s basketball at the Power Conference level. They already function like professional franchises: huge TV deals, sold-out stadiums, national sponsors, and now, direct athlete compensation. They’ll keep their large staffs, national recruiting reach, and top-tier facilities. The expectation is that these programs stand on their own financially, paying their bills with media rights, ticket sales, licensing, and donor support—while also serving as a major marketing arm for the university.
One for the Many
This is where most college sports live—Olympic and non-revenue sports like swimming, track & field, gymnastics, wrestling, rowing, and softball. They aren’t built to turn a profit, but they matter deeply to the campus community, athlete development, and the U.S. Olympic pipeline. Under this model, these sports wouldn’t try to play in the same economic league as football or basketball. They’d be structured for sustainability by:
Leveraging Tuition Revenue – Build rosters that mix scholarship athletes with tuition-paying participants. A track program might give partial scholarships to top recruits while bringing in walk-ons who cover their own tuition, boosting both participation and revenue.
Creating JV and Development Teams – Add junior varsity or development squads that compete regionally and give more athletes a path to progress without the costs of a full Division I travel schedule.
Reducing Travel Costs – Focus on regional competition, schedule multiple opponents in one trip, and share transportation to trim expenses without hurting the athlete experience.
Using Existing Resources – Share facilities, training staff, and administrative support across multiple teams to avoid unnecessary spending.
Aligning with Institutional Goals – Use these programs as recruiting tools for the wider student body, attracting high-achieving and diverse students while enriching campus life.
The beauty of the “Many” model is that it opens doors instead of closing them. Instead of cutting sports when budgets get tight, schools can right-size them into a sustainable framework—keeping more teams alive and, in some cases, adding new ones.
Why This Matters for Olympic Sports
Olympic sports don’t usually make money, but they produce something you can’t buy: national pride, lifelong opportunities, and school spirit that extends far beyond the stadium. Under the “One for the Many” model, these teams wouldn’t have to fight football or basketball for the same pot of money. They’d have a system designed for their reality—one that still offers scholarships, keeps travel manageable, and protects the pipeline for future Olympians.
If we don’t move in this direction, the financial pressure will only get worse. Schools will start cutting anything that doesn’t turn a profit, and once a program disappears, bringing it back is almost impossible.
If we do get it right, the future could look entirely different. Football and basketball could keep growing and generating revenue, while Olympic and non-revenue sports thrive in their own lane—funded sustainably, staffed appropriately, and competing on a schedule that makes sense. Instead of fewer opportunities, we’d see more students getting the life-changing experience of college athletics.
